Free Essay

What Is Morality

In:

Submitted By pmtooman
Words 1294
Pages 6
(1) What is Morality, And where it comes from:
What is Morality? Morality is defined as a system or code that we humans use to differentiate between right and wrong. This system could be derived from a number of factors: Religion, Culture, and upbringing. It is difficult enough to determine what an individual’s morals are, but going further to determine how we came to possess those morals is even more ambitious. Still, regardless of its difficulty, this subject consumes many philosophers and psychologists. Most moral psychologists further believe that complex social structures such as religion and politics as well as our need for social structures affect ones personal structure of morals. Some even theorize the possibility of evolution causing ones morals. Personally, I have great interest in philosophy and ethics, but the theory that evolution over time has affected morality today is one theory I have not read about.
Where does morality come from? One major belief, of which I will personally emphasize on, is about Cultural relativism, in accordance with the source of morality, is the ideology that each culture has its own source of morality and therefore each culture has its own particular morality. An example of cultural relativism is that one culture believes that murder is bad while another culture believes that murder is not bad. This applies to the case in a big way, the people in Thailand believe that the sex tourism business is a reputable enterprise, but other countries that supply the tourists believe that this type of thing is terrible. So they implied their morals on the Thailand people thus showing that each culture has its own morality. Another example is of me. I, along with my siblings was born in a different Country. I came to the U.S at a young and adaptable age and started 1st grade here, and thus assimilated well to the new culture of being American. On the other hand my older siblings had either a hard time adjusting, or, flat-out said NO to a lot of American ways. As I’m older now, and I’m confronted with this subject, I tend to reminisce about some of the ways of life I lived back in my home Country. It is evident that some of my morals flashback to my early upbringing in a different culture, and when coincided with my new culture, it is then I notice my moral differences are predominantly based on culture. (2) Common philosophical themes in Bacon and Socrates regarding how philosophy and morality should be approached:
Francis Bacon was the founder of the modern scientific method. The focus on the new scientific method is on orderly experimentation. For Bacon, experiments that produce results are important. Bacon pointed out the need for clear and accurate thinking, showing that any mastery of the world in which man lives was dependent upon careful understanding. This understanding is based solely on the facts of this world and not as the ancients held it in ancient philosophy. This new modern science provides the foundation for modern political science. Bacon's political science completely separated religion and philosophy. For Bacon, nothing exists in the universe except individual bodies. Although he did not offer a complete theory of the nature of the universe, he pointed the way that science, as a new civil religion, might take in developing such a theory. The Socratic Method seeks to find the truth in matters, often those that are fundamentally wrong. Essentially, Socrates asks people to think to their selves and find answers to their own questions through dialogue rather than reiterate a popular definition. Usually, Socrates finds faults in the new definition and asks that a refined one is created. In theory, this process is to be continued until a satisfactory definition is reached. The key to the Socratic Method is the moment of confusion all of the people subjected to it experience. Once their beliefs are shattered, they find themselves forced to think independently and search for the truth. This method of Socratic questioning becomes especially invaluable when dealing with complex issues that are commonly misunderstood. In these two methods we see the common understanding of Individualism, new way of thinking, and rebellion of current ideas. Although these ideas all go hand and hand, Socrates and Bacon taught them as steps to new insight of living. The want for individualism leads to a new way of thinking, which in turn leads to a rebellion of the current ideas of living. We in modern times, especially in the Western world, can see the great influence these two Philosophers had bestowed upon us. In their time, they experienced the enslavement of the mind, whether it was through politics or their culture. So Socrates and Bacon taught us that according to the philosophy of morality we are not living our entirety until we can all individually contribute free ideas of life and live with them in unity. (3) Common educational themes in all the videos:
The commonality that I came across in these videos is that everyone of has a duty to live a fulfilling life, not just for the sake of ourselves, but for the sake of the idea that we all share this world. The videos connected very well how we all have a responsibility of finding ourselves, because if not someone else will do it for us. Constantly, I hear people claiming that they have 'found themselves'. These people go to retreats across the world in an attempt to escape their everyday lives and suddenly after a few weeks they magically know who they really are and what their purpose on this earth is. This new sense of completeness generally lasts for a couple of months, and then it is back to the routine life they led before their escape from reality. It is my belief that one 'finds himself', not by spending thousands of dollars at a peaceful retreat, but by living one's life. Through everyday experiences, whether it is the people I meet or through the challenges I face on a day-to-day basis, I think that self is not something I will find, but something I will create. Everyday I associate with different people and they allow me to consider different points of view through their own perspectives. As I view situations differently, I start to become more aware of how I can approach future issues to result in the most positive outcome. Through this process I realize that I am working on creating a better 'me'. I have personal ethics and morals, and I try to live my life by these values. When I come across a decision I have to make I contemplate my morals and ethics and make my decision based on what I think is deemed the right thing. I believe that we should all be kind, honest, caring individuals and that is the type of person I strive to be. So, when it comes to creating the self, I simply try to follow basic principles. Living our lives to the best of our ability is all we can do and then hope for the best. I feel that if I try and do the right the thing and make the right choice every time I am faced with an obstacle, I will become a better person. I know that this is not easy, but I believe that by following these guidelines I will be well on my way to creating myself. Becoming a better person to me, is all I can ask for, and in my mind if I continue to do what I think is better not only for me but for the people around me, It is then I will have 'found myself'.

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

What Can Plato Teaches Us About Morality

...actually inefficient and undermines the true values of their citizens. Plato’s best known and comprehensive work is the Republic. He criticized democracy as an inadequate form of government because it caused corruption of people through public opinions and created rulers whose main concern it to the ability to influence its citizen rather than being knowledgeable of proper rulership. Therefore, this government is capable of molding the perception and ideas of the citizens. According to Plato, democratic governance is a poor form of government due to the focus on self-interest rather than the welfare of society as a whole. In this essay, Plato’s background, views on politics will be presented first; then, his in-depth opinion of democracy and what he believed to be an ideal society. Plato wrote, in his autobiography Seventh Letter, that he could not identify himself with any political parties because they were heavily engage in corrupted activities. However, it was due to the execution of Socrates that provided Plato with the assurance that the existing governments were fallacious without any possible reparation. He perceived politics as unhealthy and wanted to achieve an eradication of politics. According to Plato, society can possibly be harmonious, productive, and obtain sustainable social living if liberated from politics. Through politics, citizens have a tendency to seek justice from elected officials and the government. In the Republic, Socrates had a discussion with other...

Words: 2213 - Pages: 9

Premium Essay

Examine the View That Morality Is Dependent on Religion.

...Examine the View that Morality is Dependent on Religion. (21 Marks) There are three main views for Morality and religion: Morality is dependent on religion, morality is Independent of religion and morality is opposed to religion. There is a myriad of reasons for and against each of these statements. Many people do believe that morality does depend on religion for reasons such as that western law was originally based on Biblical principles, for example stealing and murder. For many however the question is how morality should be linked with religious faith, even though this causes problems between secularists and religious believers. The view I’m going to explore mainly in this essay is the view that ‘morality is dependent on religion’. People who believe that religion and morality are linked would argue that you cannot have morality without religion and that all rules come from God as he is the source of Religion. This is backed up by the fact that even social laws created to run western countries are taken from religious books such as, the Bible. Many people who believe the statement morality is dependent on religion would be Absolutists and believe that we should never question moral codes or there is ever a time when moral codes should be lenient. Absolutists would have no emotion to a situation and would therefore condemn situation ethics as they would believe the answer to a problem is always the same no matter the situation. This is because an absolutist would...

Words: 1039 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Can We Be Good Without God

...Views on Controversial Issues in Religion Can Morality Exist Without Religion? | | Rajoo Kamal-Wilnoff (10781867)Sociology 321.3, Section X01Professor Bryan PukMay 28, 2014 | “Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what’s right.” – Isaac Asimov | Can We Be Good Without God? Can we be good without God? The question has been a controversial one throughout history and a variety of positions are apparent regarding the relationship between religion and morality. Theists undoubtedly find in God a source of moral strength and resolve which enables them to live lives that are better than those that they would live without Him, but it would seem arrogant and ignorant to claim that those who do not share a belief in God do not often live good moral lives. Should the question really be about the objectivity of moral values, and whether said moral values are simply social conventions, or mere expressions of personal preference? Are they valid independently of our apprehension of them, and if so, what is their foundation? Moreover, if morality is just a human convention, then why should we act morally, especially when it conflicts with self-interest? Are we in some way held accountable for our moral decisions and actions? This paper explores the ontological claim that the morality does not require religion, religious motivation or guidance to exist, based on the opposing views presented in two essays “Religion, Morality and Conscience” (1996), by John Arthur, professor...

Words: 2093 - Pages: 9

Premium Essay

Morality

...It is all relative: A look at what is “right” and “wrong” with our views on morality In her article “On Morality,” Joan Didion attempts to address the subject of morality, a word that she says she “mistrusts more every day.” Many people trace morality back to Socrates and his Greek compatriots, but it is not as if those philosophers thought one day out of the blue, “Gee, understanding right from wrong and making valued choices based on that understanding sounds like a great way to live. People should just do that from now on!” No, the idea of morality did not randomly pop into some ancient toga wearing philosopher’s head; morality is innate in human beings. The concept of morality has become prevalent in our species over time through biological and societal evolution, and is made stronger in individuals through upbringing and social development. However, as Didion notes in her article, what is right, what is wrong, and the very meaning of morality itself has become difficult to discern in today’s modern world. Morality has its roots in the evolution of our species. In order to have a better chance of survival and reproduction in the big old scary Stone Age world, early humans used social bonding and grouping to gain a competitive advantage. These early groups were only as strong as the relationships between their members; groups with individuals who empathized with one another and looked out for one another would have a better chance at survival and procreation....

Words: 756 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Fuller Morality of Law - Jurisprudence

...of law and morality coupled with empirical methods. The 20th century however, saw a huge of interest again in the natural law theory. American legal philosopher, Lon Fuller who was “an outsider within the intellectual climate of mid-twentieth century legal philosophy” today, stands as “the leading natural lawyer” at the forefront of it. However, despite seeming to conform to natural law thinkers, Nicholson claims that Fuller’s “natural law terminology should not be allowed to obscure his originality”. He eschews the Christian doctrines normally present in natural law, and instead presents a more procedural approach to marry the ideas of morality and law. This essay will explore his claims - namely the “internal morality of law”, its moral authority and also further the argument that posits the inherent intertwine of law and morality is correct and necessary as the first line of defence against evil regimes and as a check and balance to ensure government accountability. Fuller’s Internal Morality of Law For context, it’s worth noting what Fuller believes as the purpose of law - that it is a purposive “enterprise of subjecting human conduct to the governance of rules”. Fuller begins by introducing two types of moralities - the morality of duty and aspiration. He describes the two using “an imaginary scale” that “starts at the bottom with the most obvious and essential moral duties and ascends upward to the highest achievement open to man”. Simply put, the morality of duty requires...

Words: 3199 - Pages: 13

Premium Essay

Law and Morality

...Explain the role of morality in the law of England and Wales. Law is a set of rules and boundaries that I set as a guiding conduct that determines the way in which we behave, it was established by authorities which if disobeyed can lead to a sanction. Sir John Salmon said: 'the body of principles recognised and applied by the state in the administration of justice' Whereas morals are set of beliefs,  values and principles shared by society or a part of society to determine what is right from wrong, that doesn't need to be obeyed as it is a voluntary. As society becomes more diverse the need for a distinct set of rules emerges. Legal codes emerge from moral codes but there are differences between the two, such as: Law can be made instantly an alternate deliberately by legalisation. A law either exists or doesn't. Morality cannot be deliberately changed and develops over a long period of time, according to the attitudes of society. Morals will consistently change over time, to reflect a change in attitudes, and the law must attempt to keep up in these situations. An example of this can be seen in the case of Gillick( Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA (1989)), where Mrs Gillick a roman catholic mother of five, sought a declaration that what she saw as an immoral activity of giving contraceptive advice and treatment to girls under the age of consent was illegal regarding its immorality. There was a conflict, as some saw this as immoral as it would encourage underage sex...

Words: 1391 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Kant vs Nietzsche Philosophy Paper

...Kant vs. Nietzsche One of the most fundamental questions in philosophy is what the most important thing we are looking for is and what effects it has on our lives. There are different views related to such a fundamental question. The treatment of people is the question of morality. We are going to take a look at positions taken by great German philosophers Kant and Nietzsche on the question of morality and the way people should be treated, based on their arguments presented in theories developed by them. Kant’s philosophy is based on the assumption that there is a metaphysical dimension which implies that there are some absolute things that do exist outside of human beings and which are the ends in themselves (not intended to promote an achievement of any other end). Kant calls these abstract absolute things the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative in his view is something that is not dependent on anything else and, therefore, should be something that we should strive for. The concept of the categorical imperative is important because we can use it to determine whether our actions are being moral through the application of the universal law, which implies the categorical imperative. The universal law says that we should never act except in such a way that we can also will that our maxim should become a universal law. The whole system of Kant’s morality is based on the assumption that there is an autonomous will, which is the source of moral action and decision-making...

Words: 2047 - Pages: 9

Premium Essay

Fdsf

...Dershowitz and Alan Keyes contended many issues on religion and morality. Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor, believed that “morality can be maintained without religion.” He also stated that it must be maintained without religion because times have changed. He said that if religion is not separated from state it could have severe damage, such as the Crusades and the Holocaust. Dershowitz believes that there is a difference between morality and religion. When people are moral without religion, they are being virtuous on their own, not because they are afraid of God. He stated that religion should not consist of a Cost-Benefit Analysis. Alan Keyes, a former Republican presidential candidate, stated that religion sets the standard for what’s moral. Keyes argued “power only ultimately respects another power,” and Martin Luther King Jr. was not a preacher byaccident. Dershowitz also stated that not everything in the Bible should be believed word-for-word, even George Washington said “indulge religion with caution.” Keyes believed that if state and religion should be separated, then why does the Declaration of Independence contain so much about religion? Alan Dershowitz and Alan Keyes would have argued endlessly about religion’s role in society if there were not a moderator to stop them. Religion and morality exist together in parallel according to Alan Keyes. Alan Dershowitz stated that if religion and morality are not separated, it could have negative discourse. James Fowler...

Words: 1152 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Morality and the Law, the Validity Question

...MORALITY AND THE LAW; The Validity Question By Nfon Mark PLAN Introduction -A general overview of Morality and the Law -Definition of Morality and the law -Principles of Morality -The validity question Body -principles of Morality in details -The principle of Truth -The principle of Courage -The principle of Compassion -The principle of Love - The principle of Forgiveness - A general overview of other principles of morality II Reasons for and against the law taking validity from Morality. -Reasons why the law most take its validity from Morality -Reasons against the Law taking validity from Morality. -conclusion with a personal view Morality and the law; the validity question The notions of Morality and the Law are as old as the biblical story of creation, where God created man and gave him rights, duties and laws to follow (Genesis 1). According to the oxford dictionary, morals is ‘concerned with or derived from a code of behavior that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society. (Www.Oxforddictionaries.com). morality is the degree to which something is right and good. The moral goodness and badness...

Words: 2663 - Pages: 11

Premium Essay

Ethics and Morality in the Corporate World

...adfh JIS S e c 3 (1 ) 2 0 0 7 Journal of Inform ation System Security w w w.jissec.o rg Ethics and Morality - a business opportunity for the Amoral? Ian O. Angell Professor of Information Systems Information Systems Department London School of Economics and Political Science London, United Kingdom Preamble It is common for speakers at computer security conferences to tell audiences that 'they should do' this, and 'should do' that. The word 'should' is regularly thrown about as some jumbled-up mixture of efficiency and ethics, without any justification of the imperative. This paper will concentrate on the ethical issues, and so it will quickly dispose of 'efficiency,' leaving detailed argument for another time. Then, taking the devil's advocate position, it will focus on demolishing the certainty behind the ethical obligation, by questioning the role of ethics in society in general, but specifically in computer security. Indeed this paper will claim that an unsuspected morality and ritual lies behind many real-world security choices and much so-called 'objective' academic analysis. Furthermore, it will propose that such moralistic positions are highly problematic, and that all recommendations phrased in terms of virtue rather than pragmatism be treated as highly suspect. This polemical paper formed the basis of a keynote address given at the 5th Computer Security Conference, held in Las Vegas on the 20th-21st April 2006. 4 Angell, JISSec ...

Words: 6215 - Pages: 25

Premium Essay

Rs - Absolute and Relative Morality Ethics

...a) Explain the differences between absolute and relative morality. (25) To start, it is necessary to define the terms 'absolute' and 'relative' with reference to morality. Absolute means any theory in which the rules are absolute: they are unchanging and universal. Relative means any theory in which something is judged in relation to something else and is therefore open to change. Absolute laws or rules of morality will never change. Another way of putting this is that they are objective. Objective means that I am not bringing in any personal opinions or bias, so the rules that I work out are rules that anybody else would rationally come up with. We may come to work out these rules by use of reason and so any rational human being would be able to use his/her reason to come up with the same set of rules. For example, I may, using reason, work out that it is wrong to lie. An absolutist would think that it is therefore always wrong to lie, in any situation and in any culture. So it is just as wrong for me to lie about cheating on my boyfriend as it is to lie about the fact that Santa isn't real. And I can never think it is right to lie, even, to use Kant's famous example, if there was a murder at my door enquiring as to the whereabouts of my friend. If I knew my friend was hiding in my house, I would have to tell this to the murderer. In this situation, Kant would say that if I had lied to the murdered, and then in some strange coincidence my friend had left my house and was...

Words: 1932 - Pages: 8

Premium Essay

Essays

...a) Explain the differences between absolute and relative morality. (25) To start, it is necessary to define the terms 'absolute' and 'relative' with reference to morality. Absolute means any theory in which the rules are absolute: they are unchanging and universal. Relative means any theory in which something is judged in relation to something else and is therefore open to change. Absolute laws or rules of morality will never change. Another way of putting this is that they are objective. Objective means that I am not bringing in any personal opinions or bias, so the rules that I work out are rules that anybody else would rationally come up with. We may come to work out these rules by use of reason and so any rational human being would be able to use his/her reason to come up with the same set of rules. For example, I may, using reason, work out that it is wrong to lie. An absolutist would think that it is therefore always wrong to lie, in any situation and in any culture. So it is just as wrong for me to lie about cheating on my boyfriend as it is to lie about the fact that Santa isn't real. And I can never think it is right to lie, even, to use Kant's famous example, if there was a murder at my door enquiring as to the whereabouts of my friend. If I knew my friend was hiding in my house, I would have to tell this to the murderer. In this situation, Kant would say that if I had lied to the murdered, and then in some strange coincidence my friend had left my house and was met...

Words: 1932 - Pages: 8

Free Essay

Are Homosexuals Moral or Immoral?

...In this reaction paper, I will discuss my stand regarding the moral status of homosexual. Let me first define the word moral. Based on Merriam Dictionary, moral is defined as these: concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior; based on what you think is right and good. So this suggests that morality is both subjective and objective just like values. According to an article I’ve read on the internet, homosexuality is not immoral. There were major ethnical theories presented, but I will focus on just one theory, which is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism states that morality should be guided by the results of an action. If an action leads to good results, then it is a good act, but if an action leads to bad results, then it is a bad act. This theory will tell us that homosexuality will be morally right if its consequences lead to happiness, and wrong if it ends in unhappiness. Now, the question is this: does being homosexual lead to happiness or pain? Before I answer that question, let me first discuss the possible causes of homosexuality. According to Craig Biddle, an author of books regarding morality and principles, there are three elements that causes homosexuality. Two of which are biological and environmental. Science is still inconclusive what makes some people homosexual, but it is believed that there some genes that makes them such. Most scientists would agree that being gay is not a choice. Years of research suggest that people can't change their...

Words: 1003 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Moral Development

...Morality is the decisions and actions one makes that are either wright or wrong. Lawrence Kohlberg a psychologist followed Piaget’s theory of morality. He came to the conclusion in his research that morality in individuals was developed in six stages. Through his research he studied a sample group of seventy two boys in Chicago. The ages of this group were ten, thirteen, and sixteen. He would later go on to research younger children and boys and girls from other cities in the United States and other countries (Crain 1985). Kohlberg was trying to figure out why some children acted how they did when it came to some moral dilemmas Stages of Moral Development Kohlberg theorized the development of moral behavior into six stages. The first stage is considered the preconvention level. At this stage a person behaviors morally or unmorally depending on the consequences of their behavior and rewards and self-interest (Coon & Mitterer, 2013). There are two stages at this level: obedience and punishment and stage two individualism and exchange. The conventional level is the second level and consists of two stages called Good Interpersonal Relationships and maintaining the social order. People act at this level to please others and to follow the rules and values of the group. The post conventional level is the highest level and consists of social contract and individual rights and Universal principals. Kohlberg states that the behavior of individuals at this level...

Words: 1026 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

Law and Conscience

...Norms of Morality Prof. Fernandino J. Pancho Definition •Norms of morality ◦is the criteria of judgment about the sorts of person we ought to be and the sorts of action we ought to perform. ◦the quality of things manifesting their conformity or non-coformity with the norm or criteria. (that which conforms is good or moral, that which do not conform is evil or immoral) ◦The subjective norm of morality – Conscience ◦The objective norm of morality – Law (natural) •Both natural law and conscience are rooted on Eternal Law, the ultimate norm, thus, there is only one norm. Loading... Conscience •The subjective/proximate norm of morality. ◦It is proximate because it is what directly confronts an action as good or bad. •Function: to examine/investigate, to judge, to pass punishment on our moral actions. ◦It approves & commends; reproaches & condemns; forbids & commands; accuses & absolves. •Synderesis – it is the quality by which man naturally perceives the truth of the self-evident principles of the moral order. Conscience - definition •Derived from the Latin words “con” plus “scientia” which means “with knowledge” of what is right or wrong or “trial of oneslf” both in accusation and in defense. •It is the “inner or little voice of God in man” crying out man’s moral obligations and telling him what to do and what to avoid in the moral order. •It is an act of the practical judgment of reason deciding upon an individual...

Words: 3356 - Pages: 14